SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1144

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Perla Gopinath Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 192 of 2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 173(8) CR.P.C. - TAKING COGNIZANCE - MAGISTRATE'S DISCRETION - PROCEDURE - INTERFERENCE BY REVISIONAL COURT - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a criminal revision case challenging the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence and summoning the accused. The police had filed a final report stating 'action dropped' after investigation. The de facto complainant filed an application under Rule 83 of the Criminal Rules of Practice r/w Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate has the discretion to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation. The Magistrate is not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(a) though it is open for him to act under Sec. 200 or Sec. 202 as well.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused? 2. Whether the Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(a)?

Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate has the discretion to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation. The Magistrate is not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(a) though it is open for him to act under Sec. 200 or Sec. 202 as well.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision case and upheld the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order dtd. 13/8/2021, passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur in Crime No.47 of 2020

2. On a report given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.47 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC by the III Town Police Station, Proddatur. During the course of investigation, the investigating Officer summoned the de facto complainant and informed her that the accused/petitioner herein is highly influential and politically well connected in the State, as such it would be an exercise in futility for her to pursue the present case and to prosecute him. Later the Investigating Officer suggested the de facto complainant to enter compromise in the matter with the petitioner. Later the investigating officer without completing the investigation, in the most lackadaisical manner, filed final report stating 'action dropped'. The investigating officer did not examine some key witnesses and some incriminating documents relating to that case produced by the de facto complainant. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the conclusion arrived at, by the investigating officer, the de facto complainant filed a petition under Rule 83 of Criminal Rules of Practice and under Sec. 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The averments, as per the Final Report, are that the deceased namely Varra Jayamma, aged about 72 years, was resident of YMR Colony, Proddatur. One Gurivi Reddy is the husband of the deceased and they have two daughters. Varra Radhika (L.W.1) is the youngest daughter of the deceased and she is residing in Kiran Enclave, Diamond Colony, Secunderabad. The elder daughter of the deceased was married and staying in USA. Gurivi Reddy performed the marriage of Varra Radhika (L.W.1) who got divorce with her first husband and married another person by name one Sabu Bhaskaran who is resident of Hyderabad. On 14/2/2019, the father of Varra Radhika (L.W.1) died due to ill health. The father of Varra Radhika (L.W.1) was running Petrol Bunk at Old Bus Stand for the last 40 years. Later, in the year 2012, one Perla Gopinath Reddy/the petitioner herein, who is elder brother of Varra Radhika (L.W.1) by courtesy, joined in her father's petrol bunk with 49% partnership. After 5th day of her father's demise, the accused/petitioner herein, in order to acquire the petrol bunk, tortured the deceased. The accused also stated to the deceased that she was no way connected with petrol bunk and also told her not to come to Petrol bunk. The accused also scolded her in filthy language. On coming to know the same, Varra Radhika (L.W.1) questioned the accused/petitioner herein about he threatening the deceased but he did not care her. Varra Radhika (L.W.1) informed the same to Kandhula Raja Mohan Reddy (L.W.15) also and that the accused did not heed to the words of Kandhula Raja Mohan Reddy (L.W.15). The accused did not agree to sign in joint account maintained in the bank pertaining to the petrol bunk. In the month of February the deceased obtained separate permission for keeping petrol tanker. On 5/2/2020 the petrol tanker was unloaded with petrol in the petrol bunk. At that time Vuppu Mahesh (L.W.6) told deceased not to keep the petrol tanker in the premises of petrol bunk. The deceased informed the same to Varra Radhika (L.W.1) over phone. On 7/2/2020 morning Varra Radhika (L.W.1) came to the house of deceased from Hyderabad. The deceased told about the torture of accused towards her so saying that she was suffering a lot. On 7/2/2020 night Varra Radhika (L.W.1) Shaik Bi Bi (L.W.5) and deceased have slept in the house after taking meals. During early hours at about 4.00 a.m., the deceased was crying loudly with pain. On that, L.W.1(Varra Radhika) and Shaik Bi Bi (L.W.5) got up from sleep and enquired the deceased. The deceased replied that due to unbearable torture from the accused, she was vexed i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top